P S BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P . S. Bhatnagar has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, D.007-4-1976, by which his appeal (F. A. O. No. 203 of 1972) was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case may briefly be stated thus: The appellant, who was posted as Chief Design Engineer of Bhakra and Beas Projects and B. R. Palta, the then General Manager of the Bhakra Control Board, were travelling in the Beas Project Car NO. PNH--1424, which was proceeding from Nangal via Jullundur towards Talwara on July 5, 1967, when at about 4 P. M. on the intersection of Jullundur by--pass G. T. Road and Hoshiarpur--Jullundur Road, there was collision between the said car and the Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNQ--906, which was proceeding towards Jullundur City from Jandu Singha and Bhakra. The car was driven by Sulakhan Singh and Kashmira Singh peon was sitting on the front seat while P. S. Bhatnagar and B. R. Palta were sitting on the rear seat. As a result of the accident all the occupants of the car sustained injuries. The bus was driven by Shankar Singh driver. Both P. S. Bhatnager and B. R. Palta received serious injuries in the accident and had to be removed to the hospital. The appellant filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jullundur, on Nov. 23, 1967, which was later on amended on Feb. 5. 1968, claiming Rs. 9,55,000.00as compensation from the respondents on account of expenses incurred by him on the medical treatment of the injuries sustained by him and the effects thereof. It was alleged in the application that he had sustained a fracture of left arm and injury to the head, as a result of which he was completely disabled for the rest of his life and that the accident had primarily occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by Shankar Singh. The respondents resisted the claim of the appellant. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal settled the following issues:-

(3.) FEELING aggrieved from the award of the Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal which, as earlier observed, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Hence the present appeal.